Hines up next for extension

[shasta519]

16 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Exactly.  I got into a debate somewhere else about my use of the word "impact" as it relates to Hines.  His contribution to the offense is going to diminish once Frank finally gets all of the pieces he needs.  Hines' position should be a smaller portion of the pie than what it has been.

 

It definitely should. Sure if they still throw it 700x, then maybe the volume can stay the same, but the team target share should definitely go down when they get the pass catchers they need. And that's a good thing. Relying on your RB2 as a top 2 target in your offense is not a recipe for success IMO. Those targets are more valuable going elsewhere. I would argue they are more valuable going to RB1 counterpart anyways.

 

But they also won't have a 39 year-old statue at QB with diminishing arm strength, who likes to dump it off so often.

 

So with a great OL and a mobile QB with a big arm, Hines will be come more of a tertiary piece. The word luxury is not that far off. I also think Hines is very much of a product of this offense...and therefore fairly fungible. But he's also a fan favorite and can certainly catch, so I do see them re-signing him.

[DougDew]

11 minutes ago, WentzinRome said:

Exactly, he isn't the "bell cow" but a very valuable piece moving forward.  I have read in this thread about paying both him and JT, moving forward...if JT continues to ascend, he will most likely be out of the Colts price range.

I think you've got the RBs switched. 

 

With our investment into road graders in the oline, having a bell cow RB makes that investment earn a return.  We need to pay JT if/when that is needed.

 

 OTOH, if you're going to pay road graders a lot of money, then paying an APB that gets the ball in open space 2 seconds after the snap makes paying road graders a complete waste of cap.  Those roadgraders become the luxury. 

 

Having said that, I'm not advocating we pay JT, because Ballard may be a GM who thinks he can find RBs in the draft.  I'm just saying that between Hines and JT, JT is the one you pay for, IMO.

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

It definitely should. Sure if they still throw it 700x, then maybe the volume can stay the same, but the team target share should definitely go down when they get the pass catchers they need. And that's a good thing. Relying on your RB2 as a top 2 target in your offense is not a recipe for success IMO. Those targets are more valuable going elsewhere. I would argue they are more valuable going to RB1 counterpart anyways.

 

But they also won't have a 39 year-old statue at QB with diminishing arm strength, who likes to dump it off so often.

 

So with a great OL and a mobile QB with a big arm, Hines will be come more of a tertiary piece. The word luxury is not that far off. I also think Hines is very much of a product of this offense...and therefore fairly fungible. But he's also a fan favorite and can certainly catch, so I do see them re-signing him.

Right.  Hines touches and yards may stay the same or even go up from a pure stats measurement, but that would be because we have fewer three and outs and the offense itself is producing more snaps than last year.

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, shasta519 said:

 

Sure, but RBs are a bit different. They have short shelf lives and peaks.

 

Plus, last season was Hines best season and Rivers has a history of raising RB play in the passing game. Let's see how he plays with a new QB.

 

I think Jamaal Williams is probably a good comp. He is 26 this season (same as Hines next season). He has been similarly productive and he got a 2/$6M deal. Granted the market was depressed, but teams really aren't lining up to pay big money to change of pace backs. 

 

So if you can get Hines to agree to $3M/year...go for it. But giving him $5-6M right now doesn't make a ton of sense.

 

My prediction is that he signs a 3/$14-15M after this season.

4-5 million per year?! For a 3rd string RB? Seems pretty stout

[LiveAndLetAddai]

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think you've got the RBs switched. 

 

With our investment into road graders in the oline, having a bell cow RB makes that investment earn a return.  We need to pay JT if/when that is needed.

 

 OTOH, if you're going to pay road graders a lot of money, then paying an APB that gets the ball in open space 2 seconds after the snap makes paying road graders a complete waste of cap.  Those roadgraders become the luxury. 

Thanks for your reply and no I do not have my running backs switched.  Should JT become what I believe he will, he will demand top money, like a lot.  If the thinking is paying him in 3 years than, yes, do not extend Hines.  If they don't want to pony up the big bucks for JT, than please extend Hines.  I hope that made more sense?

[DougDew]

Just now, WentzinRome said:

Thanks for your reply and no I do not have my running backs switched.  Should JT become what I believe he will, he will demand top money, like a lot.  If the thinking is paying him in 3 years than, yes, do not extend Hines.  If they don't want to pony up the big bucks for JT, then please extend Hines.  I hope that made more sense?

I understood you.  I'm saying that I think Ballard wants a bell cow by all indications of how he's structured the oline, hasn't gone after that elite QB, and traded up to get JT.  Maybe said more clearly, IMO the competition for JTs next contract is going to come from a potential college rookie who can be a bell cow for four years.  I don't think that how much he pays Hines will play into that very much.  If he's looking forward, he'll probably hold back paying Hines a premium now thinking he may have to pay a premium for JT later, but its pretty early in JTs career to worry about that.

 

Hines doesn't play the same role and his competition is going to be from players who get the ball in open space near the LOS (which could also be from a college rookie).  Two different players even though they are listed as RBs on the depth chart, and I think Ballard is going to want to pay a premium to keep JT in his role, like he is for Leonard, Nelson, and Smith, more than he will want to pay a premium to keep Hines in his role.   JMO.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

11 minutes ago, WentzinRome said:

Thanks for your reply and no I do not have my running backs switched.  Should JT become what I believe he will, he will demand top money, like a lot.  If the thinking is paying him in 3 years than, yes, do not extend Hines.  If they don't want to pony up the big bucks for JT, than please extend Hines.  I hope that made more sense?

We have two years before we have to worry about JT. Signing Hines to a 3 or 4 year deal would make little difference. Hines is not going to cost much. We need to get Hines and Zach locked up. Neither will cost much.

[LiveAndLetAddai]

16 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I understood you.  I'm saying that I think Ballard wants a bell cow by all indications of how he's structured the oline, hasn't gone after that elite QB, and traded up to get JT.  Maybe said more clearly, IMO the competition for JTs next contract is going to come from a potential college rookie who can be a bell cow for four years.  I don't think that how much he pays Hines will play into that very much.  If he's looking forward, he'll probably hold back paying Hines a premium now thinking he may have to pay a premium for JT later, but its pretty early in JTs career to worry about that.

 

Hines doesn't play the same role and his competition is going to be from players who get the ball in open space near the LOS (which could also be from a college rookie).  Two different players even though they are listed as RBs on the depth chart, and I think Ballard is going to want to pay a premium to keep JT in his role, like he is for Leonard, Nelson, and Smith, more than he will want to pay a premium to keep Hines in his role.   JMO.

We agree, thank you for your clarity 

[LiveAndLetAddai]

17 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

We have two years before we have to worry about JT. Signing Hines to a 3 or 4 year deal would make little difference. Hines is not going to cost much. We need to get Hines and Zach locked up. Neither will cost much.

  My preference is to sign Hines to an extension, please let me be clear.  Though @DougDewmade an excellent point about paying JT.  It will be interesting to watch this play out.  Btw, are you psyched for Sunday?

[GoColts8818]

2 hours ago, shasta519 said:

 

Sure, but RBs are a bit different. They have short shelf lives and peaks.

 

Plus, last season was Hines best season and Rivers has a history of raising RB play in the passing game. Let's see how he plays with a new QB.

 

I think Jamaal Williams is probably a good comp. He is 26 this season (same as Hines next season). He has been similarly productive and he got a 2/$6M deal. Granted the market was depressed, but teams really aren't lining up to pay big money to change of pace backs. 

 

So if you can get Hines to agree to $3M/year...go for it. But giving him $5-6M right now doesn't make a ton of sense.

 

My prediction is that he signs a 3/$14-15M after this season.

Again that has nothing to do with the idea of not giving him an extension because of fear of injury which was what I was objecting too.  

[EastStreet]

24 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

We have two years before we have to worry about JT. Signing Hines to a 3 or 4 year deal would make little difference. Hines is not going to cost much. We need to get Hines and Zach locked up. Neither will cost much.

 

How much do you think is realistic for Hines on an extension. 

[GoColts8818]

41 minutes ago, csmopar said:

4-5 million per year?! For a 3rd string RB? Seems pretty stout

Odds are if he’s brought back he will be the second string back next year.  

[BlackTiger]

46 minutes ago, csmopar said:

4-5 million per year?! For a 3rd string RB? Seems pretty stout

It will be interesting to see how Taylor, Mack and Hines split the snap counts.  I have not heard much of anything about Mack this year but if hes good to go I can see him getting more snaps than Hines, maybe by a lot.

[jvan1973]

10 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

How much do you think is realistic for Hines on an extension. 

3 years 15  seems appropriate.   

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

11 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

It will be interesting to see how Taylor, Mack and Hines split the snap counts.  I have not heard much of anything about Mack this year but if hes good to go I can see him getting more snaps than Hines, maybe by a lot.

Mack won’t out snap Hines. Mack will be there to spell Taylor for maybe 5 to 10 snaps. His goal is to prove he is healthy and can still play. Then he can look for that contract from another team next year. Hines role won’t change.

[DougDew]

55 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

We have two years before we have to worry about JT. Signing Hines to a 3 or 4 year deal would make little difference. Hines is not going to cost much. We need to get Hines and Zach locked up. Neither will cost much.

Yeah, I don't think JT has much influence in the Hines situation at this point.  Paying a player who is durable and is a known quantity helps a young offense more than saving a few bucks by finding a replacement in the college draft, but I still don't think he is a player that commands locking up like DL, QN, and nonsense (edit: LOL, Braden Smith's initials).   But it would stink if we extended Hines early then he got hurt.  I think the proper course is to wait until after mid season to even address it.  Keep him from hitting the market if you want, but let the season play out.  I don't see where his price has much chance of going up from this point forward.

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

22 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

How much do you think is realistic for Hines on an extension. 

Probably exactly what has been stated. 5 mil for 3 years. Somewhere in that ball park.

[EastStreet]

18 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

3 years 15  seems appropriate.   

That would top 15 pay.

 

I'd prefer to go no more than 4M/year. 3M/year would be fantastic.

[BlackTiger]

17 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

Mack won’t out snap Hines. Mack will be there to spell Taylor for maybe 5 to 10 snaps. 

That is about how many snaps Hines gets.  I could see Mack getting some carries, he was pretty good.  They could use him to keep JT rested, Mack is cheap right now and on a one year deal

[EastStreet]

20 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

Mack won’t out snap Hines. Mack will be there to spell Taylor for maybe 5 to 10 snaps. His goal is to prove he is healthy and can still play. Then he can look for that contract from another team next year. Hines role won’t change.

Not sure I agree. It will depend weekly on the game plan, but I think Mack could easily out snap Hines this year if he's healthy. Probably better to talk rushing attempts and passing targets. If talking rushing attempts, I could see Mack easily having more attempts. We averaged almost 30 rushes last year. I could envision a rotation of 15-10-5 on attempts (JT/Mack/Hines). Hines will likely get more targets unless they all of sudden start throwing to Mack more than the past. And if we're up by a few scores, or it's late and we're killing clock, Mack is probably the choice. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

5 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

That is about how many snaps Hines gets.  I could see Mack getting some carries, he was pretty good.  They could use him to keep JT rested, Mack is cheap right now and on a one year deal

They are different players. Mack may take a few away from Taylor. Reich also likes to ride the hot hand so it really is going to depend on game and who is hot.

[Superman]

3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

If we wait to sign Hines, I’d defer to Ballard’s judgement.  
 

But I absolutely disagree with the view that Hines is a “luxury” for our offense, and I’d be beyond shocked if Ballard and Reich agreed with that perception.   I don’t think we used a pick at the top of the 4th round of the very good 2018 draft on a “luxury” player.   I think he’s viewed as a valuable weapon on a variety of levels. 

 

I don't mean to diminish his role to the team. I think he's an excellent weapon, and I'd love to keep him. I had been begging for a change back for a decade, I love what Hines brings to the table.

 

When I say luxury, I mean his production and his role are specialized, and the offense could replicate 90% of it with other players already on the roster. Slot production can come from other pass catchers, his rushing production can come from other RBs. And there are potential change backs in every draft, if you want another player like Hines, at a fraction of the cost. You can replicate Hines by dividing his > 10 touches/game among other players.

 

And then to double down with a new contract for any RB, it's a decision to consider very carefully. I'd rather see him finish this season healthy before guaranteeing him more money for future seasons, just because of the nature of his position, and his subsidiary role in the offense. It's already questionable to have the change back as the highest paid RB on the team; if he gets signed, then gets hurt and misses all of 2022, it's sunken cost. 

 

I trust the braintrust with the cap and roster management. Just talking through the injury potential for a RB, along with the cap allocation for a secondary player at a platoon position.

[NewColtsFan]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't mean to diminish his role to the team. I think he's an excellent weapon, and I'd love to keep him. I had been begging for a change back for a decade, I love what Hines brings to the table.

 

When I say luxury, I mean his production and his role are specialized, and the offense could replicate 90% of it with other players already on the roster. Slot production can come from other pass catchers, his rushing production can come from other RBs. And there are potential change backs in every draft, if you want another player like Hines, at a fraction of the cost. You can replicate Hines by dividing his > 10 touches/game among other players.

 

And then to double down with a new contract for any RB, it's a decision to consider very carefully. I'd rather see him finish this season healthy before guaranteeing him more money for future seasons, just because of the nature of his position, and his subsidiary role in the offense. It's already questionable to have the change back as the highest paid RB on the team; if he gets signed, then gets hurt and misses all of 2022, it's sunken cost. 

 

I trust the braintrust with the cap and roster management. Just talking through the injury potential for a RB, along with the cap allocation for a secondary player at a platoon position.

 

I think you and others here make a good case for waiting.    If we wait,  we wait.    

 

I'm not sure I share that 90 percent of what he brings can easily be replaced by what's on the roster.   Perhaps in total volume,   but not in the same style (not sure if that's the right word?)

 

Can other receivers catch his passes?    Maybe,  but he's average about 60 receptions,  and I think Hines out of the backfield helps everyone else succeed.   Having to keep Hines covered opens holes elsewhere in the defense for our other receivers.   Or, put another way,  I think the loss of Hines would allow defenses to tighten up against our other receivers.

 

I also question whether replacing Hines with a RB in the draft is as easy as you and others make it sound?    As I've written before,  we spent pick 104 on Hines.   Top of the 4th round and likely means he had a 3rd round grade on our board.    So, I think his skillset is prized by Ballard and Reich and others and I don't think that's easily replaceable.   

 

My arguments are NOT to say that we might not still lose him?    We might offer 3/15 and another team might offer a better, sweeter deal and he might just take it?    But I hope that doesn't happen.    Yet, Ballard makes it very clear he understands when that happens and thinks a player should take the best offer when it's his 2nd contract (the money maker).   So, I think it's quite possible. 

 

But, as much as I want Hines back,  I also wonder about re-signing Lewis and Turay and BB, and Rochelle and Muhammed?   Ballard wants depth on the DL,  but some of those guys might leave for better opportunity.    Next year all of them might be behind Paye and Dayo.   Our offers to stay as back-ups might not measure up.    That's very much on my radar.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, shasta519 said:

 

I don't even think they would give him Ekeler money. Ekeler has been more productive as a runner and clearly the superior pass catcher. He's arguably the best pass-catching RB in the NFL and was coming off a season with 1,500+ yards from scrimmage (nearly 2x what Hines just did). 

 

But I agree...it makes sense to wait. If he wants to take $4M...get it done. But I would let him test FA as well. I don't think it hurts the Colts to wait at all.

 

Ekeler was used as a starting RB due to necessity, and his production was meager in that role, especially as a rusher. He's at his best as a change back, just like Hines. 

 

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

That would top 15 pay.

 

I'd prefer to go no more than 4M/year. 3M/year would be fantastic.

 

So you'd let him walk.

 

The market is pretty clear for a player like Hines. An arbitrary 'top whatever' status isn't relevant. For second contracts, there's an obvious top tier for RBs, and it's the eight guys making $12-15m/year. Melvin Gordon is kind of an outlier at $8m. The next tier is backups and change backs, and it's a really tight range from $5-6.125m. Some of those guys in that range had injury issues, btw. 

 

It's hard to see $3-4m/year keeping Hines from leaving in FA.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I also question whether replacing Hines with a RB in the draft is as easy as you and others make it sound?    As I've written before,  we spent pick 104 on Hines.   Top of the 4th round and likely means he had a 3rd round grade on our board.    So, I think his skillset is prized by Ballard and Reich and others and I don't think that's easily replaceable.   

 

Some are trying to make it sound easy. I definitely don't view it that way. But it is possible, and it's an option.

 

As for his production, JT can catch passes out of the backfield, providing the same element Hines does in that role. We have jet sweep type guys on the roster, like Campbell (assuming he's healthy), etc. 

 

These are the things I think will come up when it's time to decide what kind of money they'll offer him. 

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, csmopar said:

4-5 million per year?! For a 3rd string RB? Seems pretty stout

 

Only if you view him as 3rd string and not 2nd.     Mack will likely be here one more year and then move on.

 

I see Hines as basically the 2nd string.

[NewColtsFan]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Some are trying to make it sound easy. I definitely don't view it that way. But it is possible, and it's an option.

 

As for his production, JT can catch passes out of the backfield, providing the same element Hines does in that role. We have jet sweep type guys on the roster, like Campbell (assuming he's healthy), etc. 

 

These are the things I think will come up when it's time to decide what kind of money they'll offer him. 

 

One last thought on Hines....

 

Perhaps the best thing he may have going for him....  (or not)  is that we have a program that values culture and rewarding our own.   Re-signing our better players.    We're going to be seriously tested as to how truthful that is.   

 

Can we keep Hines, even if we slightly have to over pay him?    Maybe?    But maybe not?    I think keeping him would send a strong message to the locker room.    Letting him walk might send a mixed message to the mid-level players who want to see how many of our own we try to keep?   Obviously, it's worth watching.

[csmopar]

33 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

One last thought on Hines....

 

Perhaps the best thing he may have going for him....  (or not)  is that we have a program that values culture and rewarding our own.   Re-signing our better players.    We're going to be seriously tested as to how truthful that is.   

 

Can we keep Hines, even if we slightly have to over pay him?    Maybe?    But maybe not?    I think keeping him would send a strong message to the locker room.    Letting him walk might send a mixed message to the mid-level players who want to see how many of our own we try to keep?   Obviously, it's worth watching.

That is an interesting take. And I agree 

[Superman]

50 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

One last thought on Hines....

 

Perhaps the best thing he may have going for him....  (or not)  is that we have a program that values culture and rewarding our own.   Re-signing our better players.    We're going to be seriously tested as to how truthful that is.   

 

Can we keep Hines, even if we slightly have to over pay him?    Maybe?    But maybe not?    I think keeping him would send a strong message to the locker room.    Letting him walk might send a mixed message to the mid-level players who want to see how many of our own we try to keep?   Obviously, it's worth watching.

 

Yeah, they want to keep their own, but they can't keep them all. It goes without saying that they're going to let good players walk from time to time. It's a byproduct of drafting well in a salary cap system.

 

Ballard's comments about Mack tells the whole story, IMO. When discussing upcoming free agent back in February (?), he said he thought Mack had earned a nice contract, and that he doubted it would come from the Colts. I assume that wasn't the first time Mack would have heard that, by the way; Ballard would have discussed this with Mack or his agent before making that comment publicly. Good player, kind of a stacked position for us, and you don't want to have a lot of money tied up for RBs anyway... it was kind of obvious.

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, Wentzszn said:

They are different players. Mack may take a few away from Taylor. Reich also likes to ride the hot hand so it really is going to depend on game and who is hot.

Last season that RB rotation was attributed to Rathman, so I don't know that we know how the RBs will be handled this season, as a matter of policy.  Most suspect that JT will not be pulled (and snaps awarded to the backups) simply because of a rookie pitch count (which appeared to be the driver).  By default, Hines will get fewer backfield line ups than last year.  Not to mention that Mack will probably be the first backup option this season.

 

And other players can run the plays Hines does.  Can Campbell or even DeMichael Harris run a jet sweep as well as Hines. probably.  Can JT catch a screen pass as well, yes.  A wheel route, maybe.

 

So it just adds up that Hines' circle of opportunity could be collapsing from a number of directions.  And another team might even be more attractive to HIM.

 

Compare that to the big three of Q, DL, and BrS who do not have any other players taking snaps away from what they do.  They play every snap and do not flip around based on situation.

 

Therein lies the difference in value to the team and when its necessary to lock in a player and when you can let it ride for a while.

[NewColtsFan]

Ballard has said, more than once, that there will be times where one of his players will be worth more to another team than he is to the Colts.    And Ballard says he’s fine if our player leaves to another team for better money.  He hopes the player would give us the shot to match the offer to retain him. 
 

Likely Mack.  Possibly Hines.   Certainly possible some of our young DL next year.   The test will be real and challenging.  

[EastStreet]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

So you'd let him walk.

 

The market is pretty clear for a player like Hines. An arbitrary 'top whatever' status isn't relevant. For second contracts, there's an obvious top tier for RBs, and it's the eight guys making $12-15m/year. Melvin Gordon is kind of an outlier at $8m. The next tier is backups and change backs, and it's a really tight range from $5-6.125m. Some of those guys in that range had injury issues, btw. 

 

It's hard to see $3-4m/year keeping Hines from leaving in FA.

Well, Chubb, Cook, Kamara, Henry, McCaffrey, Elliot are making 12-15ish per year. Those are your top 6. .... He's not those guys. So am I'm going to give him 15/year and put him close to the top, no, I would not. Doubt he's going to get 15M/y from anyone else either. He's simply not that good to demand that kind of money. If his yards from scrimmage were higher, then I'd consider it. If he could take a true RB load (and be effective), then I'd consider it. But he's not that guy. I want to keep him, loves what he brings, but I've have a limit on my wallet for an APB or RB2.

 

Like you said earlier, 90+% of his yards can be pushed to others. Maybe more or all. And even if it was only 75%, I'd still let him walk at 15M. I agree with the league's treatment of RBs lately. They're fungible, and big second contracts should be limited for the elite and healthy. Hines has been healthy, but his workload hasn't been near what the others have been either. And I just don't see him as elite.

 

IMO, PFF ranked him about right (27th), but even they were clear he's an APB and not an elite bell cow that can catch well. He's just not close to Kamara or McCaffrey types. Top 25 is about 3Mish. Yes there are rooks in that top 25 mix, but that in itself tells you something in terms of how RBs are treated. So sign me up for 4M/y at most.

 

 

 

 

[NannyMcafee]

No one saw Pascal coming as a legitimate WR. Kudos to the guy. 

[lollygagger8]

I still want to see Hines and Taylor on the field at the same time. 

 

Line them up split back, or line Hines up at RB, then motion him up to the line. Or line him up as a WR, he's got great hands. 

 

One of them would be open at all times. 

[shasta519]

15 hours ago, csmopar said:

4-5 million per year?! For a 3rd string RB? Seems pretty stout

 

It's definitely on the high end. But I think it's what will happen.

[shasta519]

13 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Ekeler was used as a starting RB due to necessity, and his production was meager in that role, especially as a rusher. He's at his best as a change back, just like Hines. 

 

But he is their starting RB now...that's what they signed him to be. After letting Gordon walk, they have only drafted a 4th and 6th round RB.

 

I agree he's not a 300-carry guy, but he's a guy that could give you upwards of 200/year at a good clip. Hines would get exposed in that role iMO. 

 

And even in an injury- filled year with a terrible OL, some combo of Tyrod Taylor and a rookie QB, he puts up better numbers than Hines did with Rivers and the Colts OL.

 

At his best, his production is like 80% more than Hines. I just don't think value-wise, they are comparable. But if he can get $6M/year...that would be great for Hines. I don't think that happens though.

[Superman]

10 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Well, Chubb, Cook, Kamara, Henry, McCaffrey, Elliot are making 12-15ish per year. Those are your top 6. .... He's not those guys. So am I'm going to give him 15/year and put him close to the top, no, I would not. Doubt he's going to get 15M/y from anyone else either. He's simply not that good to demand that kind of money. If his yards from scrimmage were higher, then I'd consider it. If he could take a true RB load (and be effective), then I'd consider it. But he's not that guy. I want to keep him, loves what he brings, but I've have a limit on my wallet for an APB or RB2.

 

Like you said earlier, 90+% of his yards can be pushed to others. Maybe more or all. And even if it was only 75%, I'd still let him walk at 15M. I agree with the league's treatment of RBs lately. They're fungible, and big second contracts should be limited for the elite and healthy. Hines has been healthy, but his workload hasn't been near what the others have been either. And I just don't see him as elite.

 

IMO, PFF ranked him about right (27th), but even they were clear he's an APB and not an elite bell cow that can catch well. He's just not close to Kamara or McCaffrey types. Top 25 is about 3Mish. Yes there are rooks in that top 25 mix, but that in itself tells you something in terms of how RBs are treated. So sign me up for 4M/y at most.

 

I'm not sure why you're comparing him to the top tier. I certainly wasn't. I think his value falls in that next tier, around $6m/year.

 

Doing a top ten, fifteen, or 25 for veteran RBs is missing the point, because it's rare that RBs get meaningful second contracts -- they get injured, or don't produce at a high enough clip to warrant a new deal. If you have a guy that does warrant a new deal, don't slot him based on top ten, etc.; put him in the tier he belongs. 

 

Saying he's fungible and you have a limit is fine. I just don't think basing that limit on a top whatever ranking is the way to go. And it seems obvious what his market is, so coming in $2-3m lower seems like a waste of time.

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

But he is their starting RB now...that's what they signed him to be. After letting Gordon walk, they have only drafted a 4th and 6th round RB.

 

I agree he's not a 300-carry guy, but he's a guy that could give you upwards of 200/year at a good clip. Hines would get exposed in that role iMO. 

 

And even in an injury- filled year with a terrible OL, some combo of Tyrod Taylor and a rookie QB, he puts up better numbers than Hines did with Rivers and the Colts OL.

 

At his best, his production is like 80% more than Hines. I just don't think value-wise, they are comparable. But if he can get $6M/year...that would be great for Hines. I don't think that happens though.

 

Ekeler started 10 games last year, and had 116 rushes for 500 yards and 1 TD. He's not a 200 carry back, he's a change back whose greatest value is his ability to catch passes out of the backfield. That was exposed in far less than 200 carries.

 

They bring the same thing to the offense, but Hines is playing a more specialized role because we have more traditional ball carriers on the roster, and the Chargers don't, so Ekeler gets more touches, but doesn't produce like a traditional ball carrier.

[Mitch Connors]

I think Hines biggest value may be his punt returns and overall special teams value. As mentioned before we have a lot of ways to replicate his RB usage but I haven't seen anyone on this team as dangerous on ST in a while. Id be happy with the extension knowing we're viewing him as a 4 slot weapon (PR, KR, WR, RB). 

[Hoose]

I suspect the Colts wait to see how the health of the other RBs holds up before offering Hines a new contract. An injury to Taylor changes the equation and enhances Hines’ status; if JT stays a healthy bell cow, Hines’ offensive value would be somewhat diminished. 

That said, I feel Hines’ role is being devalued a bit by this Board. He’s a special talent who is hitting his stride as an APB. And his punt return skill is key as well. He doesn’t turn the ball over; he’s a genuine TD threat on every returnable punt; and he’s durable. That’s an added value that a guy like Mack doesn’t bring to the table. 

IMO, Hines would be more than worth a 3 year, $15-18 million total deal. I doubt that gets offered before the season begins, but I’d be fine if it was.